WVS v WVT [2024] SGHC(A) 35

Outcome: Appeal Dismissed.

Facts

1     The parties married in 2001 and have three children. IJ was granted in 2019, and AM orders were made in March 2024. A key area of dispute is the DJ’s assessment of the parties’ respective direct contributions ratio towards each jointly held asset.

Court’s Decision:

2     If the rental proceeds were expended or transferred when divorce was imminent (being assets in which the other spouse has at least a putative interest), they are matrimonial assets which ought to be added back to the pool within the TNL dicta. If the proceeds were proven to have been spirited away or concealed to deprive the other spouse of a share in them, they may be added back into the pool in appropriate circumstances. The Wife had not shown that the proceeds fell within either of these situations or any other situation which justifies their inclusion in the pool.: at [18].

3     Property acquired by inheritance is prima facie not a matrimonial asset. An inherited or gifted asset can be transformed into a matrimonial asset when it was substantially improved during the marriage by the other party or by both parties (s 112(10) of the Charter), but this was not advanced or proven by the Wife. The inherited property was self-financing, where the mortgage repayments had been paid from the rental proceeds from the property itself.: at [22].

4     The structured approach in ANJ is a guide in achieving a just and equitable division of matrimonial assets; it was never intended to supplant the broad-brush approach in dividing matrimonial assets. In situations where properties purchased during the marriage are sold and the proceeds are used to acquire more properties, the parties should refrain from engaging in a mathematical exercise of tracing the funds through successive property acquisitions.: at [27].

5     Given the nature of married parties’ joint lives, a forensic exercise into their financial journey (which is unlikely to be fully captured in documentary evidence) may not lead to a more just and equitable outcome. There is no social expectation nor does the law require that a married couple track and record their financial contribution or expenditure in detail during their married life. Further, allowing parties to be calculative over every sum they had contributed throughout their long years of marriage does not sit well with the philosophy of marriage nor with divorce proceedings that endeavor to support parties towards an amicable resolution and conclusion to this phase of their family life.: at [27].

6     Nitpicking at small percentages should be avoided in the division exercise. The Judge’s use of the broad-brush approach in respect of reaching the parties’ direct contributions is affirmed.: at [29].

7     There was nothing to suggest that the Judge’s determination of a 50:50 ratio of indirect contributions failed to account for the Wife's efforts in the marriage. The Judge’s decision to accord equal recognition to the parties’ indirect contributions was reasonably exercised in broad strokes, without undue focus on the minutiae of family life and should not be disturbed.: at [31].

The full text of the decision can be found here. 

This summary is provided to assist the public to have a better understanding of the Court’s judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s judgment.